Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237


Citations Needed

Nima: On Twitter and through his columns, high status pundit Nate Silver has made a career reporting on the polls and insisting he's just a dispassionate conduit of the Cold Hard Facts — registered trademark. Like Joseph Smith or the prophet Muhammad he's just channeling the holy word of — what else? — "data." Silver is not really interested in expressing any kind of ideology he insists, only doing what he calls "empirical journalism." Through this schtick however, a lot ideology winds up being advanced, unsurprisingly an ideology that reflects Silver's own self-admitted "libertarian, liberal" bent.

Adam: To pull this off Silver has perfected what one Twitter account, @InternetHippo, refers to as "Pundit Brain", whereby one forgoes fighting for things and rests on simply describing the world in a reductionist and oftentimes bleek manner. The main feature of Pundit Brain — something we've talked about on the show a lot which we call The Normative-Descriptive Shuffle — which is a rhetorical trick used effectively by Silver whereby conversations about values and policy and what is good in society are, without the reader really noticing, shifted to discussions about quote "just the way things are" in a world-weary savvy manner.



Nima: In this view, nothing is really worth fighting for on first principles, politicians should simply listen to the polls and adopt policies that reflect what is generally popular and uncontroversial. The goal of this particular rhetorical trick, and the spread of Pundit Brain in general, is inherently reactionary. By prioritizing a description of the world, rather than attempts to change it, politics becomes a pseudoscience, a sport to be gamed rather than a mechanism for improving people's lives.

Adam: The spread of Pundit Brain has trickled down into liberal discourse more generally. Now, we are all some version of Nate Silver. Average political media consumers watch polls religiously, try to figure out who is quote unquote "electable" and what ideas are quote unquote "possible." In lieu of advancing a candidate or agenda they believe in, voters themselves have become mini-pundits, not arguing for a better world, but trying to figure how best to quote unquote "win."

.........

Another good episode from Citations Needed. It's a critique of the horse race we see when it comes to electoral politics, we are just spectators of the race instead of actually participating in it and affecting change. They also speak about what they call the Normative-Descriptive Shuffle in which people will shift the conversation away from how we can make things better to "that's just how things are." The best example I see is when people say that Biden is terrible and shit, someone will chime in to say that Biden is leading in the polls as if it refuted the terribleness of Biden.

Give it a listen
 

BDS

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,845
Nate Silver suffers from hardcore DeGrasse Tyson Syndrome where he's very good at one very specific thing (mathematical models to use polling data to predict elections) but constantly steps outside his wheelhouse to talk about shit he knows nothing about because he's The Smartest Guy in the Room and everyone needs to hear what he has to say. And because he has a severe case of STEMbrain you end up with his galaxy brain takes like "why not just trade the Dreamers for the Wall then everyone gets what they want 4head." Like yeah, why don't we just hold people hostage any time we want something, great strategy there.

Look at 538's polling data and use their teachings to learn how to properly read and interpret polls. Don't use them for anything else.
 

Fanto

Is this tag ok?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,863
Nice, looking forward to listening to this when I get home, I just got into this podcast recently.

The best example I see is when people say that Biden is terrible and shit, someone will chime in to say that Biden is leading in the polls as if it refuted the terribleness of Biden.
This is definitely a pet peeve of mine.
 

Terra

Member
May 15, 2019
297
I was out on Silver when his book went almost full on climate change denial.
 

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
Eh. Assuming that the poll is solid (done properly and all that), why is it a good idea to "go with your gut" and such?

More importantly, my view has always been that

1. you can be as morally pure as snow but it's no good if you lose.
2. Lots of Americas are not secretly progressive and wont convert even if you show them all the powerpoints in the world. Any plan has to take into account those that want to watch the world burn.
 
Oct 27, 2017
936
If you listen to 538's podcast you know Nate Silver is 100% a pundit at this point. He is definitely not a 'dispassionate mathematician' or whatever the fuck.
 

Joe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,711
I'm not crazy about Citations Needed, but hearing that this is both about Nate Silver being Dumb Now, and the whole Everyone is a Pundit thing, I might check this one out.
 

Christian

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,637
I agree with the stuff about Nate Silver, but at the same time, I think it would be foolish to say that recognizing the reality of our political situation and wanting positive change are mutually exclusive.
 

lowmelody

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,101
Adam: To pull this off Silver has perfected what one Twitter account, @InternetHippo, refers to as "Pundit Brain", whereby one forgoes fighting for things and rests on simply describing the world in a reductionist and oftentimes bleek manner. The main feature of Pundit Brain — something we've talked about on the show a lot which we call The Normative-Descriptive Shuffle — which is a rhetorical trick used effectively by Silver whereby conversations about values and policy and what is good in society are, without the reader really noticing, shifted to discussions about quote "just the way things are" in a world-weary savvy manner.


Nima:
In this view, nothing is really worth fighting for on first principles, politicians should simply listen to the polls and adopt policies that reflect what is generally popular and uncontroversial. The goal of this particular rhetorical trick, and the spread of Pundit Brain in general, is inherently reactionary. By prioritizing a description of the world, rather than attempts to change it, politics becomes a pseudoscience, a sport to be gamed rather than a mechanism for improving people's lives.

The bolded really zeroes in on my endless frustration in discussions about changing minds and inspiring new voters in established red strongholds rather than defaulting to centrism that enshrines the problem that intrinsically compromises on human rights. "That's the way it has been and it will always be so we can only sell out tomorrow for negative peace today." Inspire and lead, fuck these self fulfilling prophesies of failure. The same world-weary-realist will also be the first to point out that young people don't vote and wonder why.

edit didnt mean to bold everything wtf
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
I agree with the stuff about Nate Silver, but at the same time, I think it would be foolish to say that recognizing the reality of our political situation and wanting positive change are mutually exclusive.
I agree. The issue is when people use the political reality as a means to not change anything.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,053
This feels like a whole lot of shooting the messenger. Even if you don't have a mathematical model, you should be able to portray uncertainty based on a decent list of historical comparisons to understand whether some current conventional wisdom holds true or not.

Even having a decent understanding of how to look at individual polls (basically "you don't") places somebody in the higher tiers of punditry. ResetERA wallows deep in pretty much every bad practice when it comes to modeling and polling, and of course they are going to throw shade at people that actually take a step back and don't overreact to each and every poll as it comes.

Even in the few cases presented in the OP, Nate Silver is generally in the exact opposite camp of what is being presented. Electability, for example.
 
Last edited:

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
I feel like I can predict this podcast's future topic schedule by just taking notes on what Bernie Sanders' most fervent fans are currently complaining about.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
See, I don't really care much about Nate Silver, but I do notice that people like to say he's melting down by pointing out obvious fact (e.g. the thread of an outlier poll that showed Bernie winning, Nate pointed out that that poll had an unusually high margin of error and low sample size, and there wasn't any actual news to drive a huge change in the polls, and to not take those results to the bank and people were saying he was being ridiculous and melting down when that tweet was nothing of the sort and the poll was, indeed, predictably, an outlier).
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Look at 538's polling data and use their teachings to learn how to properly read and interpret polls. Don't use them for anything else.

Yep, Silver himself is not his mathematical models. If there's something to be said for machine learning it's in removing the cult of personality from data modeling (it arguably replaces it with the cult of computers but that's a different issue that requires a lot of unpacking and wouldn't you know that it's a subject where a lot of nazis are involved). But then Silver goes out and starts extrapolating from those polls and he does so badly because what he's talking about is information that can't be gleaned from the polls he's analyzing.

As a reminder to you all, direct action gets results
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
This complaint seems so weird to me. We can all theorycraft the best possible world, that's not exactly hard. Understanding the possible limitations of the world we live in is important, it allows us to identify what success actually looks like. Bernie in 2016 is a fucking success, because of his ability to affect the status quo. To change the limitations.

And these limitations don't come out of nowhere. We don't live in crazy authotarian countries where one person decides what's right and then we're all forced to do that no matter what. We live in representative democracies. It matters what other people think, even people who completely disagree with you. The idea that pointing that out is bad, because it detracts from the real work, you know, circling jerking about progressive policy ideas we all believe.
 

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,483
I think Nate Silver tends to talk based on what he perceives as "pure numbers," and that has its place. You just need to take his analysis with a grain of salt, because he's a human with biases.

If you're taking that point of view to heart and letting it shift your worldview, that's on you. That's not your job. You're not a statistician OR a pundit, you're just a random person with a Twitter account.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Oct 28, 2017
1,469
I listen to 538s podcast and Silver really is just a pundit at this point.

I would argue that he isn't even very good at reading data outside of his specific models. He still had Kamala Harris in his "top tier" of candidates within the past month above Bernie which is patently absurd.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,560
the article I'll always refer back to on "why nate silver is just a pundit now" is this one:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

like, all of the conclusions drawn in this article are literally just pulled from his ass. all of these ratings of "appeal to demographic groups" are just shit he made up. there's no reasoning to it. it's punditry with the veneer of data analytics. he's been doing this shit for years, and he should know better - or we should.
 

Deleted member 17810

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
303
Nate Silver is a pundit, and Nate Silver is also an incredibly gifted data scientist and mathematician. Most of the time, these things don't cross but people sure like to pretend that they do. Silver is a pretty standup dude, and he's incredibly gifted at what he does. I still don't think the hate is warranted.
 
OP
OP

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
the article I'll always refer back to on "why nate silver is just a pundit now" is this one:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

like, all of the conclusions drawn in this article are literally just pulled from his ass. all of these ratings of "appeal to demographic groups" are just shit he made up. there's no reasoning to it. it's punditry with the veneer of data analytics. he's been doing this shit for years, and he should know better - or we should.
Oh nice. This is the hexagon Japanese power level ones where he inexplicably groups Hispanics and Asians together
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418


dAtA dRiVeN jOuRnAliSm


I don't get this. Do you honestly think that he'd call that take real data journalism? Of course not everything Nate says fails under data journalism, he's aware of this and both in articles and on Twitter and even on his podcast sometimes he specifically says that it's sometimes punditry or tales from his ass. And that's fine. People are allowed to have hot takes on Twitter. It's not like he's making grand non-data related points and then flaming people for disagreeing with him.
 

Orayn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,165
I checked out on Nate when he started praising Klobuchar as extremely electable.
 

Tygre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,262
Chesire, UK
I don't get this. Do you honestly think that he'd call that take real data journalism? Of course not everything Nate says fails under data journalism, he's aware of this and both in articles and on Twitter and even on his podcast sometimes he specifically says that it's sometimes punditry or tales from his ass. And that's fine. People are allowed to have hot takes on Twitter. It's not like he's making grand non-data related points and then flaming people for disagreeing with him.

It's a very recent and cogent example of his descent into punditry.

He presents a hypothesis, which could be genuinely interrogated through the application of political science, and then instead of actually using data to try and shed some light on the matter he instead resorts to a complete ass pull.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
It's a very recent and cogent example of his descent into punditry.

He presents a hypothesis, which could be genuinely interrogated through the application of political science, and then instead of actually using data to try and shed some light on the matter he instead resorts to a complete ass pull.

Or that he's a person with limited time, and so there are a bunch of hot takes that he might tweet about offhandedly instead of taking the time to investigate. Are we going to ignore that the hypothesis he gives here is a really difficult, time consuming one to investigate?

He tweets, realtively, quite a lot. I don't understand the expectation that every thought he has on Twitter needs to be data journalism. This is a singular tweet, not a set of articles or a presentation.
 

Dartastic

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,779
Nate Silver suffers from hardcore DeGrasse Tyson Syndrome where he's very good at one very specific thing (mathematical models to use polling data to predict elections) but constantly steps outside his wheelhouse to talk about shit he knows nothing about because he's The Smartest Guy in the Room and everyone needs to hear what he has to say. And because he has a severe case of STEMbrain you end up with his galaxy brain takes like "why not just trade the Dreamers for the Wall then everyone gets what they want 4head." Like yeah, why don't we just hold people hostage any time we want something, great strategy there.

Look at 538's polling data and use their teachings to learn how to properly read and interpret polls. Don't use them for anything else.
Nailed it! His tweets are fucking embarrassing.